Wednesday, July 29, 2015

"So what's the alt(ernative)-right?
The alt-right is the right wing stripped of any superstitious belief in human equality and any admission of the left's moral authority; it is the right in full revolt against the progressive establishment. "

Another way to put it is that the decent conservatives still are willing to dialogue with or engage in political compromise with the Left. The Alt-Right has decided that there is no future in that, that the game is rigged for conservatives to always lose. Hence cuckservative.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Harvesting some of the Gnostic materials I was working on in the first several years of the aughts.

Human religions can be usefully categorized as being centered in one of three traditions:

The Way of the Ancestors

This includes all the most ancient tribal forms of sacredness (and their modern revivals), as well as the polytheist paganisms of the great early civilizations, as well as Shinto and even the selfconsciously ancestor-oriented Confucianism.

The great virtue involved is reverence. The institution is the tribe (or post-tribal state). All, including the gods who emerge within it, is guided by Fate and subject to time.

The Way of the Prophets

This is a very influential but localized tradition, starting out in western Asia with Zoroaster and including the monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Bahai, an Islamic offshoot, participates as well.

The great virtue involved is justice. The institution is the post-tribal sacred community. All is guided by personal divine will ruling over a created world. Time is linear. Human life is a one-time affair, a prelude to an eternal outcome.

The Way of the Sages

An Indic and East Asian tradition of dharma, expressed in the many varieties of Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, Taoism and most recently Sikhism.

The great virtue is wisdom. The institution is the symbiosis of the specialists and the worldlings. All is ruled by impersonal karma. Time is illusory but cyclical. Life is cyclical.

These categories are pretty clear but not watertight. Judaism, being originally tribal, shows marks of the ancestor style, as well as having a secondary wisdom-literature streak. Apostolic Christianity developed a kind of ancestor-worship in the cult of the saints as well as, given its Greek philosophical milieu, a taste for the sapiential. Sikhism, which emerged in the tectonic tension between Hindus and Muslims, shows elements of both prophetic and sage styles.

It should surprise no one that when introverted-thinking type Ex Cathedra both re-wrote and re-organized* the Bible back in those years, the heart and literal center of his Gnostic scripture was composed of an elaborated creation myth set inside a frame of wisdom literature: Solomon's sayings, the Song of Songs, the Books of Job and Ecclesiastes, with elements from the Kebra Nagast, the Ethiopian saga of Sheba and her son.

Re-reading it I can see how much my thinking was dominated by the image of the reconciliation of opposites.

If your enemies are out to destroy you because you are White, how can you defend yourself unless you are self-consciously and unapologetically pro-White, that is, a "racist" White nationalist, etc?

If your enemies are out to destroy you because you are male, how can you defend yourself unless you are self-consciously and unapologetically pro-male, that is, sexist and patriarchal? And homophobic? Oh, and now transphobic?

Sunday, July 26, 2015

Indulged my theological side playing with the outlines of a post-Christian religion for the Caucasian remnant. A riff on Gnosticism, with a polymodal basis.

Took my friend B out for his 70th birthday to his favorite dive by the ocean. My ex and my current came along. Oh, and his wolf-dog. Very low brow. But that's how he likes it. He's one of those blue collar snob types. Beautiful afternoon.

Saturday, July 25, 2015

With which I find little to disagree. Why I no longer style myself "conservative."

But to the mainstream right, giving up on these issues (immigration, race & crime, etc.) will show others that the right can gain relevance, gain popularity and show that we "care". Let me tell you why this is wrong. The left has a commitment to destroy the right. Many cuckholds think that by giving their wives up to other men, their wives will love them more. But their wives will just leave them to be physically and eventually emotionally attached to the other men. So leaving this civilization to non-whites, degenerates and assorted leftard idiots won't show that you are saving said civilization. You merely gave the go ahead for its demise.

If your goal is just winning elections to support a small caveat of vague proposals such as "the free market", "small government" and the like while giving the left victories in everything else to show that you're "cool" to certain parts of the left's base, I am sorry to say you won't win. Like I said, the left has a commitment in destroying the right and everything any and all rightists stand for...

So mainstream rightists, keep telling yourselves that you need the non-white and minority vote to win while they never vote for you. Keep telling yourselves that by losing the culture war, you will win in economics. Keep praising a Negro communist philanderer while telling everyone that "Democrats are the real racists, they supported slavery and Jim Crow" while blacks still call you 'racists'. Keep being under the delusion that Fascism and Nazism were "left-wing" while all the facts show the opposite and the left accuse you of being no better than the Axis. Keep supporting and cucking for Israel while Jews keep voting Democrat and the Israelis don't care about you. Keep being under the myth that by giving in to the left, they will agree with you on something. They won't and they never will.

One of the most impressive pieces of Gnostic writing that we have is a second-century letter by one Ptolemy to a woman named Flora. It is a sophisticated interpretation of what the Old Testament could mean for a Gentile Christian.

Although it's easy to over-emphasize the differences between the Old Testament (written by Jews for Jews) and the New Testament (written largely by Jews for a racially mixed movement) in a cartoonish way, it's also not difficult to be struck by their differences.

Unlike the wisely economical Muhammad, who discarded both of these texts entirely in favor of his own single composition in the Quran*, Christians --being originally a Jewish movement-- added their sacred writings to the Jewish ones they were taught to revere. Thus, the composite library we know as The Bible.

It's always been an issue. The first Apostolic council in 50 AD was convened over squabbles about Jewish observances for Gentile Christians, especially the painful practice of circumcision and the dietary rules. Bishop Marcion, also a second-century man, was unable to see any way to harmonize Moses' Jehovah and Jesus' Abba and wanted Christians to wash their hands of the Old Testament completely**. As well as a good chunk of the New; his movement may have been the catalyst for the formal definition of the Christian scriptural canon. You can clearly see the problem still percolating in Luther's reformation, pitting Law vs Grace.

One of the salient divergences between Moses and Jesus has to do with the role of sacred law. Sacred law is at the heart of Judaism, witness the famous 613 Torah commandments which orthodox rabbis discern as the essential structure of religious Jewish life.

In the Gospels, Jesus shows a certain ambivalence about the Law of Moses, both in word and in practice. At times defending, at times re-shaping, at times discarding. The dominant Apostolic voice in the New Testament is the converted Pharisee St Paul, who made freedom from the Mosaic Law the centerpiece of his mission to bring Gentiles into the newly emerging Church.

As trolling atheists and cartoonish gays like to point out, the "Good Book" that Christians revere as the written Word of God finds it an abomination not only for men to "lay with a man as with a woman," but to eat shrimp, cross-dress or consult a fortune-teller. Blasphemy, hitting your parents and adultery are capital crimes. Slaughtering whole villages on divine command is not.

Ptolemy resolves these issues with clarity and sophistication, using a textual theory that sounds a lot like modern Higher Criticism as well as some traditional orthodox Bible interpretation.

Here's his argument:

The Mosaic Law is actually three different sets of legislation combined into a single text, authored by

a. the God of Israel,

b. Moses himself, and

c. the elders of Israel.

In the dispensation of Christ, b and c are of no intrinsic interest any more and can be ignored.

Only the laws authored by Israel's God are of interest. But for a Gnostic, the "God of Israel" is not the ultimate Godhead revealed in Jesus; he is an inferior and preliminary being, a kind of super angel who created the material world. For some Gnostics, he is an evil tyrant. Ptolemy, a Valentinian, moderately describes him as neither truly divine nor evil, just limited, temporary and local.

Consequently, this "divine" Law is itself divided into three parts:

a. The Ten Commandments, which are indeed holy but incomplete,

b. the mixed law --just but inferior-- which Jesus replaced with his own teachings, and

c. the ceremonial laws, transformed into allegorical "images of the soul."

So the Jewish Problem is resolved: for this Gnostic Christian, all that actually remains of the Old Testament legal code is

The Jewish Problem is not quite so easily solved for Apostolic Christians, who have maintained that the God of Israel and the Father of Jesus were one and the same divinity. Consequently, the influence of the Old Covenant in orthodox Christianity is palpable. But the general lines of thought would not be unfamiliar to anyone who has studied classical theological attempts to work this out.

Ptolemy, unorthodox though he be, way back in the second century, was a trailblazer.

===

* But even the Koran presents problems of internal coherence. The struggling early Muhammad of Mecca is very different from the later warlord Muhammad of Medina. Muslim scholars categorize the texts into Meccan and Medinan, and where there is conflict, the earlier texts are abrogated by the later. Given that they also hold the Koran to be eternal and perfect in every respect, this is an odd way for Allah to reveal himself, don't you think?

**There is a school of thought that posits a Jewish origin to Gnosticism and explains its anti-Jewish attitude as the bitter sense of betrayal felt by some faithful Jews, disillusioned at the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

Knowing ExC's opinion of the deadly chimera "racism" and its noxious brood of ideological siblings ("anti-semitism" included), you might be forgiven for thinking it was a cheap headline ploy to attract new readers.

Bingo, as the Catholics say.

Whatever one may think or feel about the Jewish State or about Jews, Israel may in fact be our White (separatist/nationalist/supremacist/whateverist) future: to be an embattled but prosperous and powerful ethno-state surrounded by a sea of resentful and envious savages. Like the WhiteLiberal parts of Oakland.

We have much to learn from modern day Zion.

Although most Jews and virtually all Jewish organizations in the West are enthusiastic promoters of the Third World invasion of Gentile Christian lands, when it comes to their own people's west-Asian homeland, na-ah. We could position ourselves as advocates of "Jewish multiculturalism," just like them...everywhere else but here.

They did make a huge mistake, though, one that we can learn from. They let a significant Arab minority population remain inside their new borders. One out of five "Israelis" is an Arab. Not smart.
A homegrown petri dish for subversion.

When White Zion comes about, the EuroCaucasian Rez in North America, it would be prudent to avoid such a mistake. I myself would make an exception for the Indians who find themselves inside. This is their old turf, with no where else to go. Importantly, their numbers are tiny, so they could be both treated decently and handled effectively. Pretty well everyone else who was not Zion EurAmerican material: off ya go. Israel's policy on deporting alien "migrants" is clean, clear and eminently rational. When, like the post-WWII Jews, you know that your folks are on the fast track to extinction you don't really have the leisure to be "fair-minded" about populous strangers who have lots of other options besides parasiting off you and then accusing you of "privilege."

I'm sure a lot of the Jews who love multiculturalism for thee but not for me would be howling in righteous rage at our "racism". They do that well. But, hey, we'd say, We goyim learned this from you.

Although I have not practiced Catholicism in a quarter century, its impact on me is something I feel every day. I instinctively react to attacks against it still, even if, on second thought, the attacker may have a point or two.

The issue of my homosexuality was what propelled me out of it --that was a god-awful time in my life-- but once I calmed down in my new life, I developed a more differentiated attitude toward it. I could see Holy Mother Church --as one must do with one's bio-mom*-- not as either/or but as summa this and summa that.

It became emotionally clear to me --as it had been mentally clear when I left-- that the sexual ethics of Apostolic Christianity --the Orthodox and Catholics-- was unable, even if it wanted to, to embrace same-sex sex without imploding. So I stopped being mad about it.

Ironically, it is now the Catholic/Orthodox resistance to genderism that strikes me as its (sole?) remaining contemporary value to a self-dismantling West. Rome especially has thrown its lot with the Third World savages (something I could see even back in the 80s) on race and economics. By atavistically refusing to ordain females to its priesthood** or evacuating the procreating male-female couple from marriage, it still holds out for some semblance of bio/archetypal truth about gender. That there are two. And that they are necessary opposites.

Much later, I realized that my attachment to Catholicism was fundamentally aesthetic and intellectual. Embarrassingly like a Reconstructionist Jew, it was to Catholicism as a civilization that I most deeply responded, especially in its intellectual and cultural achievements. As is evident from my ramblings here as Ex Cathedra, Catholic moralism always made me feel like I was suffocating. And not just about sex; I felt the sting of the ethics of the Twice-Born long before I even knew what sex was. With its Jesus-and-Mary driven inhuman perfectionism, it was a constant source of (again, embarrassing) Luther-like self-hatred.

After a brief and regretted dalliance with Independent Catholicism, I gave a shot at being Episcopalian for a couple of years. I missed the aesthetic and intellectual world I'd left behind, the poetry and the rootedness in something ancient and vast. That ended when I found the Anglicans to be rank Protestants deep down, despite the icing. And for a group that was constantly parading their welcome to strangers, I found them personally quite icy.

On the wise advice of my therapist, I gave up trying to join groups. As my ex used to say, quite rightly, the only reason I didn't start my own religion is because I was afraid people might join.

My next religious project was Gnosticism, the "religion of dissatisfied poet-theologians." Although I developed a loose connection with the local Gnostic church (and a friendship with its leader), it was fundamentally a solitary undertaking. Re-writing the Bible as a spiritual practice. Fascinating process.
I still find Gnosticism significant although --no surprise to this introvert-- most of its practitioners are pretty off-putting. Mostly cookie-cutter change-the-world liberals with a spiritually counter-cultural veneer, part of their adolescent oppositional-defiant pose. The last thing actual Gnostics tried to do was change the world.

As politics began to interest me, however, I found that the spiritual life took a back seat. The here and now absorbed a lot more of my energy than the Great Beyond. And this has remained the case for quite some time now. Jung's assertion that the second half of life is largely engaged in working out a balance against the first seems pretty well descriptive of my behavior.

Aside from the drain of being angry about a suicidal culture, it might be the archetypal call of biology that could draw me once again to the transcendant realm: barring accidents, I probably have only fifteen years left to live. Four fifths of my time on earth is already behind me.

Although I have always been able to imagine myself as an atheist for an hour or so, I lack the kind of certainty that atheists have and can't sustain my unbelief and fall back into theism. I know a few bright and civilized atheists; the majority of them are howling boors, the mirror image of the yahoo fundamentalists they are so obsessed with. As Mencken noted back in the 20's,"...try to imagine what the average low-browed Methodist would be if he were not a Methodist but an atheist!" Prophetic. And even less attractive than Episcopalians.

Buddhism has a wealth of psychological insight, but the Boods, as Mr B calls them, are an intolerable lot: rootless Jews and reactive Catholics playing Asian in order to avoid facing their childhoods.

So I float out here on my raft, looking up at the stars at night, enjoying the sun at morning, and being deeply fearful of what set of hungry jaws is hiding beneath the surface of the waters.

What is my current religious position? Maybe later. Time for more coffee.

---

*One of those words, like celeb, whose very existence is troubling.

** Since I have definitively ascertained that the real basis of Catholicism is not "love" or "Jesus", much less "the dignity of the human person," but the ancient threefold structure of dogma, sacraments and hierarchy, any admission of females into that hierarchy, even as lowly deacons, would be fatal. Christianity is feminized enough as it is without turning it into a vagina monologue.

Reading yet one more mainstream professional Republican commentator dumping on the "classless and vulgar" Donald Trump, a commentor pointed out that the GOP is attacking The Donald with far more vigor than they attack Barack.

One of the themes in John Keegan's 1993 History of Warfare is how armies become set in their ways and fail to adapt to new conditions. This leads to defeat. Men get a vision in their heads of what constitutes honorable war and stick to it, even when their enemies, unfettered by this ethic, are finding new ways to slaughter them.

I have recently thought of "decent" conservatives like this. Look at how all the supposed little Hitlers of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are running like little girls from association with Donald Trump because he didn't say nice things about Mexicans. Rick Perry, whom I once thought would be a good president, is having a moralizing meltdown over it.

I don't expect Trump to become the GOP candidate. They'll find a way to take him down. Because, after all, like Romney and McCain, they're committed to losing "decent."

The image that comes to mind is the soldiers of George III, all lined up in bright uniforms, out in an open field, slowly marching toward their equally honorable opponents. But in this case, they're fighting a combined force of Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda.

Guess who wins.

Being a characterological pessimist, I can't really envision a post-America that resembles anything like I want it to. Truth be told, I suspect that the Whites will continue to commit suicide and fade away into history like the Romans. North America and Europe will become Coulter's "Third World hellholes" and China will rise as the next world power. As much as my bad knee makes me regret aging, I am not entirely unhappy knowing that I will not live long enough to see the worst of it. If I were a young White man, starting to see what I see...

But in the meantime, I don't see any point in being "honorable" or "decent" anymore. What has it gotten us? What victories have come our way because of it? More to the point, how many defeats and losses has it gained us. Ay, there's the rub.

Even if One Trick Pony Trump were, by some miracle, to be the GOP nominee and actually win the Presidency...would the combined powers that be actually allow him to carry the enormous reverse migration we need?

Sts. Ferdinand and Isabella, Expellers of the Alien, pray for us.

Maybe I'll take a nap and hope to re-dream that indecent dream I had last week...

I think I should just shut down the blog and, more importantly, stop reading any kind of anger-inducing news or information whatever and spend my time writing either my magnum opus or a bad novel.

Speaking of bad novels, Harper Lee, who wrote the unfortunately influential To Kill A Mockingbird, sacred scripture to racial liberals, wrote another quite different version of St Atticus Finch. In this one --which is apparently selling like hotcakes-- he is a "bigot." That is to say, he holds opinions contrary to The Great 60's Revelation. Some lowlife souls might say he saw things clearly...

I am no utopian, clearly. Human history provides no grounds whatever for believing that we can escape the conditions of "flaw, scarcity and contingency" (Kekes) which always and forever eventually produce tragedy on this planet. My paradoxical assessment is the people are happiest when this truth is faced and accepted rather than denied and attacked. That route always ramps tragedy up into catastrophe. Today, the paradise of equality, tomorrow, the guillotine and the gulag.

You'd think that people like popes, who have the advantage of bimillenial institutional memory and the messy myth of the Fall by Original Sin, would know better. But people don't wanna hear about limits. They want the romance of Snideley Whiplash and Little Nell on the tracks. So we have an self-admittedly ignoramus pontiff lecturing the whole planet about how to set up a new economic world order. No wonder the verb to pontificate exists.

The West has never gotten over the French Revolution. Its poison still courses through our veins.

This makes the idea of loyalty to "The West" --something I have a deep identity with-- problematic.
So much of our current fecklessness is based on ideas of our own making. That is the human condition, though, at least as much as a particular Occidental weakness.

But the looser loyalty to kin and tribe which produced prosperous republics also allowed people who hate us, Alinsky-like, to use our own principles against us.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

An oldy goody from a few years ago. Ann Coulter's "Adios, America" actually focuses on the evils of legal immigration as much as illegal. The Third Worlders who come here by law are, she says, no day at the beach. The romance of immigration has long outlived the reality. It needs to stop and be reversed. As the young Identitarians in France say on their banners, Remigration!

Although B votes for Democrats and I loathe Democrats, we hardly ever discuss politics. He is in some ways, by temperament and culture, rather more conservative than his voting pattern. Compared to his professional cohort of post-secondary teachers, he is a rank troglodyte. But when I start talking about illegal immigration, he virtually hangs up the phone. Fair enough. I feel the same way when he talks about crop rotation or Rigoberta Menchu.

Anyway, just to remind my dozens of readers about why this issue makes me nuts, a reprint:

Illegality: How can it be a good thing for us if your first literal contact with us is breaking our laws? It is an aggressive act of disrespect. It is home invasion on a national scale. Left unpunished, (and now even rewarded) it promotes contempt for us and makes our sovereignty a joke. Plus, it insults people who are dumb enough to use the ordinary immigration process. These Hispanics are illegal and they are alien. As the queens say, Deal with it.

Enormity: tens of millions of illegals gives the problem serious demographic magnitude, as well as having huge costs in money, crime, social dislocation, etc.

Homogeneity: the single linguistic bloc makes them very powerful and influential, allowing both a split of the US into a bilingual country and continuous resident populations who speak an alien language.

Proximity: for Mexican illegals especially, the great majority, the closeness of the home country prevents assimilation and allows diffident, sometimes frankly hostile, relationship to America.

Hostility/Balkanicity: with the history of race-conscious ill-will between the USA and Mexico, this massive group of illegal Hispanics superheats the Balkanizing of our country into inimical ethnic tribes and will tip the scales that make Whites a minority in our own land.

Insecurity: Post-MLK America (White America) has utterly surrendered its moral self-confidence and any hope of the decreasing White majority asserting itself to foreign immigrants. The rot of multiculturalism has eroded a common Anglo culture that once might have required adaptation from these invaders, if not supported their expulsion.

Futurity: Although many first-generation illegals may be more focused on work and money, with clear experience that a hard life in America is way better than the insecure dead-end hovels they fled, their children born here, who will mostly not excel, will see what they don't have and how they don't belong in either place. Nothing good comes of this new alienated underclass, who will learn the culture and tactics of endless grievance from the Blacks.

is bordered in blood red.In a reversal of the Communist style,you'd be free to leave at any time,but trying to get in without permissionwould get you shot.

PS. These seven disasters are not the only reasons why MexAmerica is a dead-end. Another is that their presence and eventual amnesty --do you really expected the feckless GOP to hold out forever?-- will cement the dominance of the Democrats. One more Obama after another. Forever.

Commentor -A ended one of his characteristically robust remarks with this:

All women hate each other. Mother, daughter, sister, friend, co-worker, niece, aunt...they all hate each other. Deep, deep down. There is only envy and suspicion.

Although I am, in principle, allergic to universal statements, preferring the general, I am not immune to the rhetorical weight of the all, only, always. Been known to use 'em myself here on ExC.

Misogyny is typically applied as a charge against men, but -A's point is not without merit. A lot of women hate other women.

Feminism is a crypto-Victorian phenomenon. While it trumpets I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar most of its time is spent in tearful bleating about how this or that oppresses or victimizes "women." Once you get past the Phallic Female image, we find a vision of feminine vulnerability and special tenderness, a combo requiring both veneration and protection, that would have seemed quite normal to Dr. Watson.

Take the vile meme of the campus rape epidemic. (If there were ever a simple argument against co-education, this is it.) It's a lie, straight up, as the Ebonics say. But given the huge percentage of Drama Queen energy among the XX chromosomed population and the bitter anti-male resentment in the DNA of feminism, this emergency/crisis must be fomented and inflated. The most privileged and narcissistic women in history must see themselves --especially, it seems, if they are homely and emotionally warped by being raised by two psychiatrists-- as just rape victims waiting to happen.

Feminists wanna have their cake and eat it, too. And not gain weight.

It's enough to turn a man gay.

Anyway, back to women-hating women.

First off. It's no surprise. Both sexes are required by Mother Nature --a sexist Patriarch if ever there was one-- to compete against members of their own group in order to achieve social and reproductive success. They bond together against the opposite sex while at the same time fight against each other for access to it. Part of my compassion for the human condition is that it's a condition. It's a situation in which we find ourselves and have to adapt. So mixed feelings are hardly a moral flaw in either gender, though women tend to cover it up with a lot insincere kiss-kiss.

The most helpful Jungian shorthand for sexual difference comes from Antony Stevens, who combined Jung with evolution. He named rank as the heart of the archetypal masculine and affiliation as the feminine's core.

Since any social group must include both, I developed ExCathedra's corollary: men use rank to create affiliation; women use affiliation to create rank. Look at a male sports team and a female school clique. It's all right there.

Second, as a gay man, tone-deaf to the siren music of female sexual allure, I have been able to observe their behavior with a bit less self-interest than straight men. And if truth be told, a bit less interest in general! The phenomenon that -A describes in extreme terms does ring a bell with me.

With few exceptions, all of the most bitter and implacable interpersonal/ideological battles I have witnessed or been a party to have been female-driven and predominantly against other females.
The Toronto Lesbian Stalinists remain vivid in my mind, along with the Grim Feminist Nuns.

Synchronistically, there's the (rightwing media only) story of female doctors from Planned Parenthood haggling over the price of dead baby parts. Including, of course, dead female babies, the never-to-be-born "sisters" of the caring women involved...

Do all women hate all other women? Unlikely. Is misogyny just as much a home-grown phenomenon as the outsider version? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Monday, July 20, 2015

I listened to a lecture today by an American libertarian economist on the theory and practice of economy under the fascist regimes of Italy and Germany in the 30's.

Some of it sounded like me. Some of it sounded like Catholicism.

Libertarians are rank capitalists. So the author was irritated that liberals call libertarians "fascists." Fascism, both German and Italian, was consciously anti-capitalist. Not sure about the Spanish brand, But, of course, that's the name the lefties give to anyone White they don't like.

I have explained the background behind this accolade. Since Leftists believe that Whites are intrinsically evil, they must be severely regulated by the government. Consequently, anti-totalitarian small government which maximizes individual liberty and restrains the State is actually "fascist" because it unleashes bad-behaving Whites. Who are "fascist." Because they are evil.

Anyway.

Since Fascism rejects also Communism, but still thinks highly of the collective good, it rejects the Marxist versions of confiscatory socialism --the State owns anything of value-- in favor of its own version, regulatory socialism: (most) private property remains in the hands of its owners, but the State controls how they actually use it. This is the US Democrat version, too.

I recently thought that what Libertarianism and Catholic Social Doctrine have in common is that neither of them are economic systems ever found in nature.

The behavior of any bureaucracy can best be accounted for by assuming that it is actually controlled by a cabal of enemies hostile to the mission it is publicly supposed to serve.

In that uplifting spirit, if you track the performance and many of the utterances of Barry Hussein O, his behavior can best be accounted for by assuming that he is driven by a vengeful hatred against White America and the whole of the White West. Cf. Dreams From My (Totally Absent and Abandoning) Father.

Here's an online post from a gay muscle-daddy in Boston...unbelievable.

How sick is America? It allows the current stupid, arrogant, narcissist, incompetent, pseudo-intellectual dystopian socialist to continue on his path of destruction. Malevolent and a liar, he expands government in an unprecedented takeover of private industry, making egregious diplomatic and strategic blunders, and intentionally undermining the nation's economy.
Gay lemmings will undoubtedly get sucked into voting for another similar charlatan, but some of us know:
That the current office holder has:
~ Used the guise of "net neutrality" to put the Internet under government control so he could tax something now free and not in need of repair
~ Used American tax dollars to (unsuccessfully) influence Israel's election
~ Considers himself a scholar, yet never produced ONE peer-reviewed journal article or book
~ Whined about corporate "fat cats" and their jets…then flew Air Force One to NYC for a play date with his wife
~ Went on a $100,000 Hawaiian vacation…then returned to complain about income inequality
~ Flew his dog on a helicopter to a Martha's Vineyard vacation
~ Spent $100 million for a family junket to Africa
~ Went golfing after receiving news of the beheading of Americans by its sworn enemies
~ Rode on the support of gays but said nothing as gays were thrown from building tops by Muslim terrorists
~ Promoted energy policies that failed and now takes credit for lower fuel prices related to the policies he mocked and worked against
~ Selected race mongers as his chief advisors
~ Continues to portray himself as a victim and to blame his predecessor for problems that he caused or aggravated
~ Blamed the killing of 4 embassy personnel by jihadists in Libya on a "disgusting and reprehensible video"
~ Established a public "red line in the sand" in Syria, then ignored it as that country's leader gassed his own people
~ "Reset" the relationship with Russia by dismantling missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic
~ Encouraged 1/3 of Iraq including all of Mosul to be retaken by jihadists as Christians were given the choice of conversion to Islam, flight, or death
~ Defended his attorney general's use of government agencies to run guns out of Mexico in Fast and Furious even after 26 people died as a result
~ Dumped thousands of documents about the federal Fast and Furious program on Election Day
~ Insisted on trying enemy combatants in US civilian courts despite centuries of precedence that cautions otherwise
~ Lied repeatedly about the individual's ability to keep his health insurance
~ Released all 4.5 million residents of the five U.S. territories from ObamaCare on no legal basis
~ Facilitated the transit to the US and then "lawyered up" over 200,000 illegal immigrant kids that his minions dumped into Texas to increase minority numbers in a state politically hostile to him
~ Traded 5 top terrorists for 1 military deserter, against the rule of law, and after the expressed misgivings about doing so by Congress
~ Did nothing about the VA abuses for 5 years. Then took over 3 weeks to respond to them when they were published (and then did nothing again)
~ Ignored a soldier retained against cause in Mexico for over 200 days but rushed his AG to sympathize with a thug in Ferguson
~ Lied about census data
~ Abridged the US Constitution by refusing to enforce laws implemented by Congress
~ Overrode the US Constitution by going directly against laws implemented by Congress
~ Instituted policies that resulted in 1/3 of the American population being on public assistance…a tactic to ensure dependency on him and his party
~ Purposely crippled the world's largest free market economy with 18 trillion dollars of debt
~ Rewrote more than 38 healthcare laws without Congressional approval such that the Budget Office can no longer calculate the law's actual costs
~ Established fiscal and monetary policies to expand economic inequality and then blamed the result on the private sector
~ Charged charter schools, the Catholic Church, and electric utilities because they refused to go along with his health care program
~ Used the National Labor Relations Board, Securities and Exchange Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, and Internal Revenue Service to go after political opponents…and then lied about his administration's involvement in each
~ Fabricated unemployment results
~ Equated the Islamic state to a JV team and announced that Putin is doomed to fail because "countries do not invade other countries in the 21st century"…only to watch terrorism expand and Putin invade the Ukraine
~ Claimed to have "decimated" Al Qaeda
~ Mocked peaceful Americans who cling to their guns and bibles but refuses to address Islamic terrorism
-------------------------------------------------------
"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." ~Cicero 55 BCE

I don't actually believe in equality. But unlike him, I'm willing to be pretty clear about it.

I don't believe that the races are "equal," or the sexes. Or the sexual orientations. I don't believe in the disaster of universal suffrage. Or the theocracy imposed by The State Church of Non-Discrimination.

Just to show how fair-minded I can be, let me be clear that I don't believe that same-sex relationships are as important as (male-female) marriage relationships. I know this is shocking and horrific, but how could it be otherwise?

How could the domestic arrangements of far less than 3% of a population be comparable in weight to those of the 97%?

And, to put it bluntly, if same-sex eros were to disappear from the human species, the race would cook along just fine.

This raises the pre-PoMo question, "What are homosexuals for?" The fact that nature keeps making us now and then does not answer that question well. Nature also keeps making schizophrenics and, well, Africa.

The excellent question raised (but flaccidly answered) by Giles Herrada's massive The Missing Myth: A New Vision of Same-Sex Love, is: what is the mythic role of homosexuality? He points out that homosexuality --especially the modern variety*-- lacks a mythic image or voice or role. In Jungian terms, this leaves it soulless, and Herrada reads a lot of gay pathologies as flowing from this hole.

ExC has opined that the LGBT grasping onto straight marriage as the vessel for gay love represents not a victory but a massive failure both of imagination and of self-respect. It is actually a ridiculously ironic form of the famous "internalized homophobia."

Certainly heterosexuality at present is no stellar success, but its fundamental and world-shaping role in the human soul is beyond question. Us kweers, though...what are we really for?

One way to look at what our society has become under Cultural Marxism is that honor-shame plays a huge role in it, in ways that it formerly did not in the West. In an honor-shame society, how you and your group (usually family or tribe) are perceived by others is of paramount importance. That's why parents in these cultures kill their own daughters if they shame them in the eyes of strangers. It's all about public persona. And in a media saturated world, it's on steroids.

The Official Sacred Victim Groups play the role of tribes now. It is their group ego to which we must all be attentive and deferential. Worshipful, even. PC is just Victim Ego writ large. Donald Trump recently insulted Mexicans. In our sick culture this is A Big Issue. Really? Why? What's so special about Mexicans? Screw 'em. If you press just a little, you'll find they have zero love for us Gringos and view their invasion of America as just so much payback. So why worry about their "pride?"

If Classical Marxism (aka Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-PolPotist Communism) proved that a classless society was an evil mirage, then a race or gender blind society is even less likely and also evil.

So, Equality For All?

No. Not hardly. Not hardly.

___

*With very few exceptions, most cultures have shaped same-sex eros along the lines of male-female eros, trans-gendring the thing so that a same-sex dyad echoed the dominance-submission and the gender style of men and women. What is novel about post 20th century "gayness" is its attempt to assert equality between same-sex dyads and a continuing claim to the gender status of one's birty. It's sputtering out now, as gays themselves --iconically, by folding themselves into the genderist Yugoslavia of LGBTQism-- revert to the traditional idea that a homosexual man is actually a kind of female.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

One of my predictable responses, doubtless connected to my biography, is that I reject any idea or group that appears to require men to act as if they were angels.

Despite the often angry tone of Ex Cathedra, I am actually pretty pro-human. I joke that my friends B (not Mr B) and T, my ex, who both vote for Democrats and profess very high-minded morals, would, if given the chance, depopulate the planet of humankind. I, moderate that I am, would only hang about 30,000.

My mixed view of Christianity and my unmixed view of Liberalism is that both of them --Liberalism far more toxically, being a cancerous version of Christianity-- require inhuman virtue of human beings.

Politics in every time and place is a struggle over power, wealth and status:

the capacity to enforce your will on others,

the acquisition of resources for living well

and a recognized place of honor in the human hierarchy.

In contemporary America, the two primary modes of this ubiquitous war are race and gender.

Once disgraceful and even illegal,

now sacrosanct and idealized.

My quick n dirty summation of the last 50 years of the American Republic: Blacks managed to find the moralistic weak spot in Whites and got White men to feel bad about how they had treated them, surrendering their moral self-confidence and attached status to the Black "victims" Smelling the blood of submission in the water, White women turned on their own men and stabbed them in the back with the knife of feminism.

As critical as my attitude toward contemporary Christianity is, its failure is as much a source of sadness to me as anger. I feel similarly about America.

Some of the Angry Young (White) Men that I read are, as you might imagine, angry at, well, both.

There is a school of thought among them --and a school of name-calling-- that both Christianity and America have become champions of the corrosive anti-White/anti-male Liberalism as a natural unfolding of the poisonous universalism at their core. It's painful for me to contemplate.

Both Christianity and America* supported non-universalist cultures for the great majority of their existences. And the most clear-eyed and passionate of the Leftists have always named both Christianity and historic America as natural and implacable enemies of their project.

Orthodoxy, whose combination of nationalism and traditionalism have thus far protected it, stands out from the rest of Christendom, which has either fallen entirely (Western Protestantism) or has strategically compromised its ability to resist (Roman Catholicism).

Despite occasional disingenuous lip service to the demands of feminist women, Catholicism maintains the traditional doctrines on male and female difference, refusing either to ordain females or to accept genderless marriage. On the racial question, both Romans and Reformed have turned traitor to their Western homelands and their White peoples. In which case, the male-female question will be moot.

An unformed thought. Defensively, I resist the radical critique of the Angry Young White Men on grounds of this analogy: it makes as much sense to reject Christianity for its current liberal universalism as it does to reject healthy immune T-cells for being infected with HIV retrovirus and being used against the very body they were designed to protect. Or ordinary organ cells for turning cancerous. Blame the virus, not the cell.

On the other hand, once the cells are infected...

---

*Jefferson Davis, in his resignation speech from the US Congress, pointed out that the same Thomas Jefferson who penned the famous words "all men are created equal" in his Declaration of Independence also listed in his bill of indictment against George III, the promotion of "domestic insurrections" --aka slave revolts-- against the (White) colonists. TJ's accurate description of the Indians as "merciless savages" continues to rankle nice people. As ExC has noted before, the purpose of that very troublesome idea was not, obviously, its literal meaning but an argument against rule by hereditary royalty.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

One of the things I learned from Hermione Granger is to resist having my speech censored through social control. Instead of talking about He Who Must Not Be Named, she insisted on saying Voldemort, explaining that "fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself."

Although JK Rowling did treat mudblood as the equivalent of nigger. Oh, well, it's hard for that woman to be consistent. (If she were, her books would be a snoozefest.)

Hence:

I came across a comment from some braindead liberal faggot who was taunting people who connected the Chattanooga shooter with Islam without blaming Christianity for the Westboro Baptist Church, which intends to picket the Marines' funerals.

I wish I had magical powers and could wrap him in a rainbow flag and teleport him into a Muslim country, like Pakistan or Afghanistan or Indonesia or Egypt...and let the good times roll.

Speaking of the Westboros,

as I often have reason to mutter to myself about this and other groups, if this were a healthy society, these folks would have been taken care of by an angry mob many years ago.

Mob violence, like the official police and judiciary, is an ambivalent phenomenon. The word comes from the Latin mobile, fickle. As in La Donne È.

Unfortunately, in our society, you get to be a violent mob by typing on your laptop as part of "social media." Or by voting.

Friday, July 17, 2015

It was back in February 2014 that I first posted about no longer feeling myself conservative, but "a half-assed reactionary."

Reading about a new book aimed at helping conservatives sell their message to "Americans," I find it all...well, naive. As if the US Electorate makes its voting decisions on the basis of considered ideas. As if ideas of "individual liberty" and "personal accomplishment" can compete with the tribal drums.

2012 Electorate

And even when the paler segment of said electorate puts Republicans in legislative power, as in 2014,
the GOP always collapses and collaborates anyway.

To repeat myself, 90% of Romney's votes in 2012 were White. And they represented no more than 60% of the voting Whites. The other 40% were off kissing mulatto ass...again.

The only segment of the US at all open to conservatism --even in Romney's wimpy form-- are Whites. And White men especially.

The same White men who, while clearly the final target of every form of liberalism, still feel obliged to blather on about fairness and reason...the same "conservative" White men who agree the vengeful Ebonic hordes that erasing the Confederate flag is really a good thing.

Who think that writing books about "the conservative heart" will make a difference.

A very orthodox RC priest whose blog I sometimes read has been having a very rough time maintaining his reverent attitude toward the See of Peter due to the antics of its incumbent, Pope Evita The First.

A reader suffering from a bit of scrupulosity, unsure about unconfessed sins from a forgotten past, provoked from the Rev this example of how one ought to do it...

“Father, it’s been two weeks since my last confession. I failed to remember and confess that, in the time prior to my last confession, I did with willful intent, take up arms against the Sovereign Pontiff on two occasions; I consecrated five bishops without a pontifical mandate; and I stole three pennies from my mother’s purse; I used air conditioning…. Since my last confession, I have committed the following sins:…”

If you have not had the pleasure of reading Bergoglio's latest effort on global warming, Laudato si', you might not realize that he took one paragraph (#55) to inveigh against air conditioning.

Blurting out in his usual style, however, Papa Francesco The Cool, did say one unambiguously accurate thing to reporters of late, He Who Wills A New Global Economic Order:

In fact, the pope expressed “a great allergy to economic things,” explaining that his father had been an accountant who often brought work home on weekends. “I don’t understand it very well,” he said of economics, even though the issue of economic justice has become central to his papacy.

Reading a conservative journal about the Confederate flag. They are assessing the pros and cons of the argument. It even starts out "It's a good thing that flag came down. It belongs in a museum, not flying over a state house..."

No. No.

No. No. No.

It is not about the flag. The flag is about you.

They wanna take the flag down...actually they want you to take it down...
and it's all part of them taking you down.

Monday, July 13, 2015

Abraham Lincoln, the amusingly named Great Emancipator, intended, after the war was over and the slaves all freed, to transport them back to Africa (whence their fellow Blacks had captured and sold them) or to some similarly tropical place in Central America.

Fate intervened and here we are.

If old Abe's plan had been carried out and say, by 1900, there were no more Africans in accursed America, the site of their sufferings, and they'd now had the dignifying experience of more than 100 years as self-governing peoples, either in their beloved mother continent or somewhere far south of here, would it have been decisively worsefor either group?

The ancient and unvarying Christian teaching that the New Covenant supercedes the Old --an assertion repeated in every Mass--is now vilified as "supersessionism," so that, post-Holocaust, Jews are to be exempted from this irritant to their dignity. This idea, if adopted earlier, would certainly have put the kaibosh on, well, the whole Christian thing, which originated with converted Jews.

And even more oddly, it would have made Jesus' mission puzzling, since it was entirely focussed on other Jews, too. His interactions with Gentiles were almost always initiated by them and always limited to healing and exorcism. (Except when he met Pilate, of course.) He never responded to these cross-cultural encounters by inviting them to join him.

Along with the crypto-Constantinian liberal fakery of "building the Kingdom*," the notion that Jesus' table-fellowship was "universally inclusive" has no basis in the facts. He did eat with all kinds of sinners, but these were Jewish sinners. If he were breaking this fundamental Judaic barrier and eating with Gentiles, the Pharisees would most certainly have noticed and complained, but while he and they clashed over all sorts of things, this issue never came up.

So, to reference Flannery O'Connor's attitude toward another diluted-down doctrine, if the Church is not meant to supercede Israel, then "the hell with it."

Are the Jews now to start apologizing to the Canaanites for all that invasion, conquest and marginalization and genocides stuff in the Old Testament?

As part of the ecumenical trance, it's now considered rude for Roman Catholics to direct their truth claims and invitations to convert to other Christian churches..."sheep stealing", it's called...although Evangelicals and Mormons, etc --who actually believe in their own doctrines--seem not to have gotten the memo about reciprocating this new politesse.

And of course, the Muslims stay out of this silliness altogether. They'll go on and on about how they honor Jesus, but always within the context of asserting Islam's superiority and finality and trying to con you into thinking you can become the best kind of Christian by apostasizing into Mohammedanism. Can you imagine the hue and cry if Christians tried that technique --We honor Moses as a prophet, too!--to convert the now-exempt Jews?

Beneath all this is my characterological sensitivity to people who try to snooker me into thinking well of them --or who want to think well of themselves--by their not being who they really are. That's a bit of Jung (and Aristotle/Aquinas) that has stuck with me. Things have a natural shape, a nature, and shape-shifting is not a virtue.

---

*The word build before the phrase the Kingdom of God never appears in the Scripture. Not once. In all his talk about the Kingdom of God, Jesus never implied it was something you could build.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

I tried to listen to a reading of JRR Tolkien's Silmarillion, his founding myth for Middle Earth.

Zzzzz.

I am not unfamiliar with the creation mythology genre, having re-worked and re-edited the whole Bible for my Gnostic self some years ago. It is a passtime that "dissatisfied theologian-poets" have been known to indulge in.

But it seemed to me that the Tolkien story was really just two things. First, a thinly fleshed-out theogony like the "begats" of the Bible, all done in chronological sequence and elevated King James style, and well, with not enough non-linear narrative detail to keep your interest. Second, he was primarily a linguist and I got the sense, with all the names and naming and secondary names in this or that tongue he invented, that it was really the sound of these words that inspired him, that the story was a kind of vehicle to show off the vocabulary.

Arrogant of me to take this attitude, but, well, that's how ExCathedra rolls.

Impressive work, but not compelling. Unlike the Rings trilogy, which was far more evocative.

One of the issues the frequently arises in my counseling work is tension between sons and fathers. I certainly had to work through a lot of my "stuff" with my own Dad. And the result of that work has made me sorta bulldoggish about it with my male clients. The most gratifying story involving this problem begins with a gay man announcing that, when his father died, he would not attend the funeral, to a recent toss-off comment from the same guy about how much he and his dad were alike and, despite their differences, how much he admires him.

Not every father-son relationship ends so warmly, to be sure. The story above is about working to repair a broken bond, one that was destroyed by the father's narcissism. Crucially, the father was willing to tell the truth. Sam Keen --whom I once read admiringly--is not alone in exemplifying the soul-wounding split between public persona and home life. How many famous philosophers or other gurus have lived family and private lives in radical contradiction to how an admiring world sees them? In my own twenty years of communal religious life, the gap between Father Wonderful out in the parish and Brother Asshole at home was not at all uncommmon. My favorite example, for ignoble reasons of Schadenfreude, is Alice Walker, an adored paradigm of Northern California cool: BlackFemaleSurvivorBuddhistFeministEtc. In home life, a cold-hearted bitch.

I suffer the same split, I confess. The bloodthirsty ExC, Destroyer of Progress, is actually, to those who know him, a mild-mannered fella who loves a good meal and a good laugh and who never goes out of his way to wound anyone.

I was struck by the article because of my family's current tensions in the wake of my mother's death. My siblings are painfully stuck in conflictual patterns from which some of them cannot imagine ever escaping. It's a particular feature of family battles that they take on a quality of eternity, as if what is happening now is all that will ever be happening.

Sometimes that's true. There were breaches in my parents' families that never healed. But sometimes it's not. In at least one case, after a long time, --50 years!--they were able to re-connect and find a lot of pleasure and comfort together before they both died.

There are guys, even gay guys, whose relationship with Dad is a good one, even a terrific one. Blessed are they! And there are guys for whom Dad is a source of frustration or worse. In my professional life, even when the work did not complete the course, I never found it a waste of time to explore the realities of men's lives, especially the fundamental and often fractious archetype of sons and fathers.

My own Dad --who was not my birth-father but the father who actually raised me-- was a very different guy from me. It took me a long time to finally see him whole, as it were, less clouded by my personality and my expectations. I have been lucky enough to recognize that I was raised by a thoroughly honorable man, a much better man, in truth, than I am. I could not always see that.

In fact, just the other day, it dawned on me that one of the verbal habits he had which used to annoy me was in fact a constant affirmation of his marking me, another man's child by blood, as his own. I am ashamed that even now I just figured it out.

Some men are indeed bad fathers, bad men. Some out of weakness, some out of cruelty. My bulldog attitude, that men need --eventually-- to work on that connection is not a requirement that everything turn out rosily. Men can, for instance, abandon their sons and wives out of base motives. And lacking eventual repentance, I find it hard to understand why a son would not bear a lifelong grudge. But in the work I do, my interest there would be in how the bearing of that justifiable grudge finally affected the life of the bearer.

I am a believer in tactical forgiveness, of letting painful anger go when it has served its purpose and now only eats away at the bearer's future, effectively making him a prisoner of the man he vilifies. That is not something that can be managed and manipulated by ego or ideal so easily. Sometimes we have to walk with it until its time.

And while I'm at it, let me say that the Church, mater et magistra, is a lousy teacher. Telling people to forgive --one of the most emotionally challenging things a human can ever do-- without helping them through the process, being wise and spending patient energy on it...well, it kinda lets you know that they're not really all that serious about it.

Reconciliation does not mean making believe that history never happened, or that failures were not failures, but creating a new connection that takes all that into account yet does not let the burden of a painful past dominate and stunt everything new.

Saturday, July 11, 2015

When I read online sites where Asian Caucasians dominate (Indians and Pakistanis, sometimes Arabs or Iranians) I notice that one of the recurring comebacks is to tell the interlocutor to go and educate himself because he lacks knowledge. Not something you regularly hear among Euros as the first out of the box move.

On Jewish blogs, people tend to argue in paragraphs.

Watching yet one more Ebonic brawl video (dailykenn.com provides them for your cultural edification, along with a regular listing of diversity crimes), I note three recurring patterns: First, the protest that "You don't know me! You don't know anything about me!" This is unique to Africans In America as far as I know. I have heard it quite often in these situations. Second, the choice of a fighting mantra which is repeated over and over and over, as in "You don't know shit!" shouted without pause during the whole tete-a-tete. And in the age of the smart phone, those taking the pictures --often males who watch groups of female in battle-- can be heard to repeat, over and over, "Oooooo! Oh, shit! Oh, shit." in a voice the expresses --to my Caucasoid ears-- both insincerely theatrical shock and guilty but genuine pleasure.

The vast majority of comments online, regardless of race or religion, either miss the point (which the commentor never intended to hear in the first place) or change the subject or do personal attacks and name-calling.

One phenomenon I note especially in UK sites where religion is involved is that large numbers of atheist trolls drop in to repeat their phrases about imaginary friends, desert gods and bronze age fairy tales.

A priest who taught me in high school said that if there was intelligent life outside our solar system, they would never come to earth because they would be advanced enough to intercept and see our television programs.

The Left is really smarter than the Right. They, of course, will make that clear, if asked. Or not asked.
Having the great bulk of Ashkenazi brains in their service and controlling the universities' Lefties, it's not surprising. (Now that I think of it, are there any fields in which they are present that they do not exercise significant control?)

Getting the White West to buy their Soap Opera/Passion Play version of history has been an outstanding success. All you have to say is "slavery", "Native American genocide," "Jim Crow," "the crusades" and "the Inquisition," and "colonialism," and the trial is over. Off with his head. You deserve to die, cracker! Oh, but before you die, could you tell me how this thingamajig works?

In a single lifetime, mine, the West has gone from the triumphant event of putting men in space and on the moon --in the midst of carrying on a global contest with Leninist Marxism-- to the current pathetic spectacle of self-abasement and treason by the White Social Justice Warriors, dedicated to gutting and then burning down the city their ancestors built for them in the name of Cultural Marxism. All to appease savages, failures, traitors and enemies.

Another really great tactic has been the simultaneous magnification and exclusion of "hate" from the realm of what is humanly acceptable. And in the battle over Proposition 8 in California, it's ideogram version, H8.

Once noted by everyone as part of life --like smoking-- it is now deemed --like smoking -- a horrific excrescence, an outrage against common decency, the expression of which relegates the sub-human "hater" to the Outer Darkness, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (That's a Biblical reference, btw, for you post-moderns.) As the Ebonics like to say, keeping things simple so they don't get confused, "Haters gonna hate."

We are told that the Victorian prudes attempted to banish Lust. Silly wabbits, that didn't work. We had the Sexual Revolution. Although if you pay attention to college campus feminists, it's still 1895
and they are tender lilies, ever about to be violated by some caddish lothario...

But now we are asked to banish hate entirely and without remainder. Just as, in the last century, we were invited to ignore color in favor of "the content of our character." Note how well that turned out.
The same people who told us that think of nothing but the color of people's skins.

Well, I am not out to banish hate. May as well announce the end of desire or fear. It's a built-in feature, not a bug, a gift from Mother Gaia and Evolution --both of which the anti-haters are supposed to adore.

And despite my Christian history, that Sermon on the Mount stuff was always my least favorite part. So I'll be honest and say that I never bought it. It was a kind of wisdom from (and for) the Twice-Born, like the Buddhist extinction of desire. Too good for this world. And I will admit from my own history that trying to practice it brought me humiliation at a time in life when that was the last thing I needed. So appeals to Christ, etc. fall deafly on my ears. Besides, the New Testament and Christian teaching on hatred is a muddle.

Hate, to me, means a settled attitude of hostility and ill will toward what intends to seriously harm you and yours. It means a devout wish that their ends --which include your end-- be frustrated and fail. And if they suffer in the process, oh well. Nothing to lose sleep over. Their choice. This is not evil, this is rational. Failure to take such an attitude means that you will not survive. Isn't a failure to take an attitude that protects what deserves protection a failure of courage, prudence, justice and love? And if you are not meant to survive, then why the hell were you born and why the hell do you spend so much energy on continuing?

It's a tough (aka Fallen or aka Darwinian) world out there. Not for sissies. Or pacifists.

So, H8 away, sez I. 'Cause the folks who forbid you to hate hate you. Just like the "content of our character" folks...in fact, they're pretty much the same crowd.

All they really want to do is to get you to deprive yourself of yet one more weapon of resistance against them, to continue the hypnosis which has brought them so much power and you so much humiliation and loss.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Reading a piece recommended to me by Mr Blake, I tangentially came across yet another argument for seeing EuroAmericans --aka, actual Americans-- as a distinct and different nationality from Africans in America.

...it’s revealing to ask whether African-Americans should feel guilty for America’s history of slavery and Indian displacement. The answer, of course, is “no”, no one would imagine that blacks should feel guilty for stuff white Americans once did*. But this is proof, is it not, that their identity is different from mine–since I of course should feel guilty, even though my ancestors came to America just in time to fight for the Union–and that what are called the crimes of America really mean the crimes of white people. Race is really a more salient category than citizenship.

Ask yourself, in this vein, if the phrase, "the sins of America" implicates Blacks? Of course not.
"The sins of America" are the doings of White America, and White American (Straight) Men.
So clearly, the heart and soul of America is: White Men and (until feminism's treason) their wives and families.

My ex, a man of African descent (among several other lines) not only refused to identify as an American, but often even as an earthling. And being gay, he fled the Black world to live among less hostile Whites. However, on an ill-fated trip to France, beguiled by the myth of Josephine Baker into hoping he could make a life there, he discovered that he was not at home among Europeans, being too..."American." Yet it was not being American he discovered; just that he could only ever be a guest in the motherland of another race. I used to try to convince him to accept his American-ness. I was wrong. His profound sense of alienation was right.

I sometimes find that simple questions are far more revealing than complex essays. When people get all furrow-browed about, say, what constitutes White identity and go off into chromosomal research and the vagaries of history and immigration, etc, I think that Tonto's Razor really clears the field: if an accusation of racism can be laid against you, you're White**. Like it or not, it is mostly Us against all of Them.

And the author of the above fragment largely agrees with me, on his own grounds, that White people are best defined as "Caucasians from historically Christian cultures."

He is a painfully clear-eyed commentator on the cultural implosion we are living through, especially as it impacts Catholicism. And he is a rarity, a self-described Catholic racist.

*Part of the Race Game As She Is Played, though, is to triumphally include Blacks in, say, the Western cowboy saga --See? We're part of that, too, and you shouldn't keep hiding us-- but to exculpate Blacks from any responsibility for their participation. Only Whites are ever culpable, Blacks are either survivors, if called for, or victims...forever.

**I have a good friend of Asian extraction who was accused of racism by an African-in-America. This is an exceptional case, because Asians are so hyper-White in behavior and make the gap between Africa and everywhere else on the planet so clear. It'd be interesting to see if a Black could pull off a "racism" gig against a mestizo Hispanic?

Ah, yes, in the immortal words of the only true American Saint, Rev Dr Martin Luther King, from whom all righteousness flows...and to whom desperate White conservatives fly for patronage and exculpation.

Anyhoo.

I had a dream.

I was hanging Barack Obama from a lamppost in front of the White House.

In the old English style, as part of the very gruesome drama of hanging, drawing and quartering, the condemned man --women were never subjected to this end-- , after being dragged through the streets, was slowly raised off the ground by the noose around the neck until almost dead, and then revived and brought to the slaughtering table alive, where he was emasculated, slowly disembowelled and had his entrails burned, then beheaded and his four limbs hacked off.

It was the punishment for treason. So I guess the association with O is apt.

Being lazy, I guess, I was just hanging Barack, serially. Pulling on the rope until he was about choking to death and then letting him down to catch his breath and then doing it again. Over and over.

Hmmm. Can you be prosecuted for what your unconscious serves up to you. Is there such a thing as a "hate dream?"

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

Being a fan of Mulder & Scully, yet knowing how bad the second X-Files movie was, I thought, what the hell, I'll look at it again.

Four minutes and I was gone. The Potemkin Village, topheavy with the unicorn Numinous Negroes and manjawed Phallic Females in charge of everything, was some of it, but the Christian-trashing, Lefty/Dem in-joke smuggery was too much.

After Ferdinand and Isabella finally completed the 700 year battle to rid Europe of Africans, they made a terrible mistake. They allowed Jews and Muslims who would convert to Catholicism to remain in the country.*

The madly over-inflated image of the Spanish Inquisition as the epitome of Catholic evil comes largely from its attention to these conversos, on the (well-grounded, as it turns out) suspicion that their many of their conversions were insincere and merely opportunistic, to avoid expulsion.

White Liberals are unwilling neo-conversos.

They must anxiously show their BlackBrown masters that they fully embrace the doctrine of their own intrinsive evil by a) unquestioningly collaborating with whatever revenge-based scheme the BlackBrowns are working on at the moment, and b) by focussing their fury on fellow Whites who refuse to bow to the New Racial Order. Or at least fail to show sufficient enthusiasm.

However, like the Jewish Marranos and the Muslim Moriscos, these White Liberals will always be looked upon as conversos by the natural-born holders of the Privilege of Color. They will never have limpieza de sangre, unless they marry into the Third World and produce the kind of crazed halfbreeds (like Obama, Holder, Jarrett, etc. ) who will work twice as destructively to prove their they prefer their Dark to their White blood. They will have to be driven feverishly to show their allegiance to the New Order, but will always be suspected...as they should be. Like literate people in PolPot's Cambodia.

Since White evil is not only intrinsic but ineradicable --in the DNA, as Obama recently declared--- their own political faith condemns them to this limbo state of never-finally-accepted repentance.

Toward Our Future

What the sons of Europa need is a new religion: one that is as tribal, portable and survivalist as Judaism, as masculine, terrestrial and tough as Islam and as intellectually and aesthetically creative as Christianity...with a dose of the unflinching realism of the ancestral ways of the Greeks and Romans, Germans and Celts and Slavs..And for the larger Indo-European frame, something of the Indian capacity to combine an ultimate and philosophical realization of The One with a robustly mytho-poetic religion on-the-ground. Oh, and some of the psychological acumen of Buddhism.

Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo

In A Nutshell

Liberalism's Basic Flaw

Liberals believe that the chief role of the State is to force everyone to be equal, (ie, take vengeance on the successful). So when they are confronted with any group that they deem less well off than themselves, they are morally disarmed, completely and utterly. Any group that can achieve Victim Status is on their way to power and the (White) liberal's onlyjob is to give them what they want, no matter how much that damages him. And nothing may ever be expected, much less demanded, of them in return. It's a recipe for suicide: no other outcome is possible.

Demography as Destiny

"...then the end of the Roman republic was at hand, and nothing could save it. The laws were the same as they had been, but the people behind the laws had changed, and so the laws counted for nothing." Theodore Roosevelt, 1911

Multiculti Suicide

"Modern liberal societies in Europe and North America* celebrate their own pluralism and multiculturalism, arguing in effect that their identity is to have no identity."

Francis Fukuyama

Identity & Migration (2007)

*(White societies, that is.)

Equality's Dark Side (Oops, is that raciss?)

"“The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality or to get men to believe you love it. Thus, the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced ... to a single principle.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835